'I love a challenge and I love a battle'
A runner has spoken of his joy at finishing the London Marathon in his fastest ever time after having only last year being diagnosed with two brain tumours, one the size of a tennis ball.
George Wade, 41, from Thirsk, in North Yorkshire, had undergone five operations - one of which left him temporarily unable to walk - before taking part in April's race.
Despite initially feeling "hopeless" following his treatment, and amid doctors' warnings that his condition was life-limiting, he was able to take up running again.
Mr Wade, who finished last month's London Marathon in three hours and 16 minutes, said: "I was really pleased it all went well and it was my fastest ever marathon."
Mr Wade said he started suffering from light sensitivity and stroke-like symptoms in April 2024, as well as weakness down his left side.
He was an experienced marathon runner and "super fit", so assumed it was just a hangover or tiredness.
But after a "precautionary" MRI scan, it was found that in fact he had two tumours - a grade four astrocytoma tumour the size of a tennis ball on the right side of his brain and another golf ball-sized growth in the middle of his brain.
Mr Wade said: "Weirdly, in my head, one would have been OK, but two…
"You know, if you've got two brain tumours, surely you just die."
Doctors told Mr Wade he might have had the tumours for up to 20 years and his symptoms were caused when his brain "eventually just ran out of space".
He was referred to UCL Hospital and in June he underwent an eight-hour surgery, known as a "de-bulking", to remove the larger tumour.
When he woke up, he could not open his left hand or walk, so had to work with physiotherapists to regain movement.
Mr Wade said re-learning to walk on his own made him feel like running a marathon was a "million miles away", but within two days he was able to walk and within a month he could run.
He said: "I love a challenge and I love a battle. I'm 41 and super fit and I'm determined we're going to battle through it."
Although Mr Wade is still being treated for a recurring skin infection, he said he still felt "incredibly fit and healthy" now.
"I kind of thought I was fit enough to get a Personal Best, but there's no way I would have got through this without the support of my family, friends and particularly my wife Eleanor."
Claire Wood Hill, chief executive of The National Brain Appeal charity, said the £19,000 Mr Wade had raised by running the London Marathon would go towards "finding new ways to diagnose, treat and ultimately cure a range of neurological conditions".
Listen to highlights from North Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
'Hidden' breast cancer found in new screening study
A pioneering breast cancer trial involving more than 9,000 patients has found early stages of the disease that might be missed by regular mammograms. Researchers used a range of different scanning methods, including MRI scans and injecting dye into breast tissue, to better understand the disease. More than 1,300 patients in the trial were recruited through Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust. Dr Sarah Vinnicombe, the lead breast radiologist and deputy director of screening at the Thirlestaine Breast Centre in Cheltenham, said she and her colleagues had known for a long time that mammography "even though it's a good screening tool for most women, is not perfect". The issue, she told BBC Radio Gloucestershire, comes down to the density of breast tissue. People with denser tissue are at a higher risk of developing cancer, but as breast tissue and cancers both appear white on mammograms, early warning signs can be difficult to pick up. The researchers looked at three different ways of picking up early-stage cancers - a whole-breast ultrasound, a quick form of breast MRI and a type of mammogram in which patients are injected with a dye to highlight abnormal areas. With more than 9,000 women involved overall it was the first study ever to take this approach and, Dr Vinnicombe said, it yielded "fascinating" results. What the researchers found in the group of patients who had the MRI scan or contrast mammogram was a "massive increase in the number of cancers" detected. As for how their findings could impact what women are offered, Dr Vinnicombe said: "There are a lot of conversations going on in the Department of Health and the national screening committee at the moment. "It's a work in progress - it's quite clear that we can't just implement contrast mammography or MRI for all those women in the country who have very dense breasts," she added, as this would amount to around 10% of the 2.2 million women screened each year. However, she added, the research had found that not all women with denser breast tissue were at higher risk - meaning the more effective techniques they had identified could be targeted at a smaller group of women. Follow BBC Gloucestershire on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to us on email or via WhatsApp on 0800 313 4630. New hope for patients with breast cancer gene Call for NHS to give women with dense breasts extra cancer scans Gloucestershire NHS Foundation Trust
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Missouri's Historic Abortion Victory Is Crumbling Before Our Eyes
Just a few months ago, Missouri voters approved a ballot measure to protect abortion rights. That measure, known as Amendment 3, added a 'reproductive freedom' amendment to the state constitution. It was crafted to offer stronger legal protections for abortion than existed under Roe v. Wade, according to campaigners, and to end the state's near-total abortion ban, which had been triggered by the Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe. Those who voted for it believed that the amendment would allow them to override such past anti-abortion court rulings and to block anti-abortion lawmakers' future efforts—in essence, to reclaim their own rights and political voice. But as of May 27, by way of a two-page order from the state's Supreme Court, the abortion ban voters had been told they defeated was back. The ruling came as a 'surprise' to pro-choice and anti-abortion groups alike, the Missouri Independent reported this week. With it, the Supreme Court of Missouri has effectively allowed the state to enforce a raft of anti-abortion laws that had been challenged by two Planned Parenthood affiliates, which argued that such laws now violated the state constitution, thanks to Amendment 3. After last week's ruling, Planned Parenthood health centers in the state—Missouri's only abortion clinics—canceled upcoming appointments and advised patients that they could instead go to neighboring Kansas or Illinois, where abortion is legal. For now, those patients, and any Missourian who needs an abortion, have found themselves right back where they would have been had Amendment 3 never been on the ballot. The sudden loss of abortion access is an inarguable blow for Missouri's reproductive rights movement. But it's also something more troubling: a sign of flaws in the post-Roe strategy chosen by large national reproductive rights groups like Planned Parenthood and state chapters and affiliates of such groups, including the ACLU and Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL). For these groups, abortion rights ballot measures have been seen as a path forward in a hostile legal environment, a way to restore access without relying on the courts. Campaigns would go direct to the people, giving energized supporters a tangible goal to work toward, along with some optimism, amid an otherwise crushing assault on reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy. The speed with which Missouri's ballot measure has gone from being a historic victory to yet another legal battle reveals that such election night wins may prove to be far more qualified and complicated to hold onto than campaigners had hoped. For some advocates in Missouri who had worked on Amendment 3, however, there was nothing all that surprising in the state Supreme Court's ruling. They saw it as a reality check. 'There is no way to responsibly sugarcoat what's playing out in the state,' the What's Next for Missouri coalition told me in a statement from the group. The coalition was founded by longtime Missouri reproductive justice advocates, as well as former staff of Planned Parenthood affiliates in Missouri who quit over their concerns about the ballot measure. 'Amendment 3 was a limited and symbolic win,' the coalition said. 'In reality, it has failed to protect pregnant people's bodily autonomy. Inaccessible abortion is just the tip of the iceberg.' Voters in Missouri may have declared that abortion was their constitutional right, but abortion was not going to return overnight to Missouri. In November, state Attorney General Andrew Bailey offered his legal opinion on which anti-abortion laws might still be enforceable. After stating that Amendment 3 'just barely' won by a 'tight margin,' he opined that 'the result may be very different if a future constitutional amendment is put up for a vote,' and detailed circumstances in which he believed some of the laws could still be enforced. In other words, he was not going to accept that Amendment 3 automatically invalidated state anti-abortion laws—and to be fair, the Amendment 3 campaign seems to have anticipated just such a reaction. Not long after the election, the two Planned Parenthood affiliates that have health centers in Missouri challenged many of those laws as 'presumptively unconstitutional,' citing Amendment 3. Their petition, filed in the circuit court of Jackson County by Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri, also requested that the court temporarily block such laws while the case played out. That included the total abortion ban triggered after Roe, as well as laws meant to restrict abortion access even if it were not technically banned, such as mandatory waiting periods and mandatory ultrasounds. In a pair of rulings in December and February, Judge Jerri Zhang granted the affiliates' request for a temporary injunction on most of those laws, after which Planned Parenthood clinics in Missouri began to offer abortion again, with significant limits: only procedural abortion up to 12 or 13 weeks, no medication abortion, in just three clinics across the entire state, operating at limited capacity. Other restrictions remained, including some that were not part of Planned Parenthood's challenge. Mandatory parental involvement laws were later challenged by the practical abortion support organization Right By You, in April. There were also restrictions that Amendment 3 did not touch: The ballot measure allows for abortion to be banned past fetal viability, the legal line after which a fetus is thought to be able to survive independently. This means that people having later abortions were left out of the promises of Amendment 3 from the start. Missouri Attorney General Bailey appealed Judge Zhang's decision, seeking to block abortion in the state during the court challenge—an appeal enabled by a new law giving the state attorney such power to sue to halt injunctions, signed just days before. Meanwhile, the Missouri General Assembly voted to put a new abortion ban on the ballot, an effort to overturn Amendment 3. The constitutional right protecting abortion that voters believed they had succeeded in installing was being rapidly undermined across multiple fronts—by the state attorney general, in the courts, and in the legislature. This legal undermining depends in part on voters not knowing that it's even happening. The proposed anti-abortion ballot measure language did not refer to Amendment 3, nor to banning abortion, hiding its ban behind claims of ensuring women's 'safety during abortions.' For good measure, it added a ban on gender-affirming care for minors—care that is currently banned in the state. Democrats in the state legislature had tried to block the anti-abortion ballot measure proposal from advancing, but Republicans broke their filibuster with 'a rare procedural maneuver to shut down debate and force a vote on a measure that would repeal Amendment 3,' as St. Louis Public Radio reported. Amendment 3 campaign leaders forcefully denounced both the new ballot measure and the legislature's underhanded attempt to reverse the will of Missouri voters. 'This deceptive amendment is a trojan horse to reinstate Missouri's total abortion ban,' Tori Schafer, director of policy and campaigns at the ACLU of Missouri, said in a statement. At protests on the steps of the state Capitol in Jefferson City, Amendment 3 supporters were now fighting to hang onto their victory, as they have had to many times this session. 'This past November, more than 1.5 million Missourians made their voices heard at the ballot box,' Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Abortion Action Missouri, said. 'Missourians are used to fighting back and are prepared to keep showing up.' Two weeks later, abortion access in the state would be all but nonexistent again, after Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Russell ordered Judge Zhang to vacate her temporary injunction and to reevaluate the Planned Parenthood affiliates' request, this time using a stricter standard. The ACLU of Missouri, which is co-counsel in the legal challenge, told The New Republic that it had 'immediately' responded to the order by sending correspondence to the court, 'highlighting that our arguments met this standard.' Tom Bastian, ACLU of Missouri director of communications, added that while the group 'can't predict when the court will act, we anticipate new orders … granting the preliminary injunctions blocking the ban and restrictions, once again allowing Missourians access to abortion care.' For now, then, those Missourians will be doing what they did before election night, before Dobbs: going out of state or self-managing their abortion with pills. In this, the reality for abortion in Missouri looks a lot like it did back when the near-total ban passed. The difference is that now more than $30 million has been spent on a ballot measure meant to reverse that ban. As the legal scholar Mary Ziegler pointed out this week, it is possible that Missourians' abortion rights will prevail, that Planned Parenthood will get its injunction, or even that the new anti-abortion ballot measure may fail. However, as she wrote, 'what is happening in Missouri is still a sign about the limits of ballot measures.' Advocates in other states should be asking: What is such a 'win' worth? The legal battle over Amendment 3 is nothing new, as Planned Parenthood's initial filing in this legal challenge acknowledged. 'The State of Missouri has spent decades attempting to eliminate or severely reduce abortion access,' its petition stated. 'This means that Plaintiffs have spent decades challenging these laws.' The lengths that Missouri lawmakers have been willing to go since the election, unfortunately, indicate that this is not a fair fight in fair courts. 'It's time for simple honesty,' What's Next said to me this week. People will have unreliable and irregular access to abortion 'until we shift power away from fascist politicians.' The reality is that this fight for the constitutional right to abortion was playing out at the same time that our constitutional rights were being ignored and undermined on a regular basis. Before we fundraise millions more dollars to replicate the fight in other states—fundraising that will be justified as 'restoring' access to abortion by making it a right—we might consider other, more immediate ways to give people what they need. That money might be better spent on paying for actual abortions, as abortion funds across the country do, helping people in the many states with abortion bans to access care. In a legal system that cannot be counted upon, there may be no more direct way of supporting a fundamental right.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
University granted £1.5m to set up dental school
A training centre in Lincolnshire offering courses in dental hygiene and therapy will open in 2026. The University of Lincoln has been granted funding of £1.5m to establish the facility. Vice chancellor Prof Neal Juster said it was "a first step towards training dentists themselves". The funding has been approved by the Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority (GLCCA), with Mayor Andrea Jenkyns saying the award was "great news for residents". Prof Juster said the county was "known as a dental desert" and he hoped to get to a full dental school training dentists one day. When it opens in September 2026 the new Lincolnshire Institute of Dental and Oral Health will be part of the University's Medical School. It will accept around 30 students in its first year and will teach a new BSc in Dental Hygiene and Therapy alongside a foundation course designed to help dental nurses and other healthcare professionals retrain and upskill. The funding has come from the government's Shared Prosperity Fund which was handed to the GLCCA to distribute. Meeting for the first time since last month's local elections and chaired by Mayor Dame Andrea Jenkyns, it voted unanimously to award the money. Dame Andrea said she recommended the funding was approved and was "really pleased to get this project off the ground". At the same meeting councillor Ingrid Sheard was voted in as deputy greater Lincolnshire mayor. Sheard is an elected Lincolnshire County Council member for Spalding Elloe for the Reform UK party. Listen to highlights from Lincolnshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here. Long queues as dentist offers NHS places 'I was living on soup, porridge and painkillers' Dentist closures 'heartbreaking', says councillor First NHS dentist for five years in seaside town 'County will lose dental desert tag' - health boss University of Lincoln Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority
